Even Sony's 24mp APS-C sensor has too much noise. Do we really believe for a second that Canon is going to come out with a sensor that beats theirs? I'm not down on Canon...I LOVE my 5D Mk III, I just feel like people in this thread are getting their hopes up A LOT.

"The Last Camera Syndrome" article really applies here. These specs are all nice but, none will persuade me to buy the 7D mkii, over my 7D. All, except for one. If this new APS-C sensor really does have, at the least, 5Dmkii noise performance, then I will strive to purchase one. The problem is, I seriously doubt the sensor will achieve such performance, even with superb noise reduction software and resizing.

These two rumors seem quite contradictory. Quote from 6D in-depth review by DPReview:

Construction is solid, if perhaps not offering quite the same bullet-proof feel as the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS 7D. In part this is because the 6D has a plastic top plate, which according to Canon is necessary to allow the Wi-Fi and GPS to work. The rest of the body uses a magnesium alloy shell, and Canon describes it as 'dust and drip-proof'.

I think the potential for this to be correct is very real. But it isn't just noise where the 7D sensor needs to improve, but include DR and color. I just upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII and multiple aspects of IQ are standing out...not just noise. The images are just richer...and, this surprised me, easier to post-process.

Love the 7D, and honestly, I was waiting on a 7DII with much the same specs posted in the rumor. But it is going to take a lot of hands-on reviews before I am convinced the IQ is equal to FF.

The rest of the spec list looks pretty darn good, but I'll believe the line about ISO performance when I see RAW files. But then again, in marketing speak 'close to the 5D3' might mean simply that the native range is 100-12800 (which is 'close to' the 100-25600 native range of the 5DIII and a 1-stop improvement on the 7D spec). Many times, Canon's statements about ISO performance improvements refer to JPG images or ISO range, not noise levels at a given ISO setting.

The rest of the spec list looks pretty darn good, but I'll believe the line about ISO performance when I see RAW files. But then again, in marketing speak 'close to the 5D3' might mean simply that the native range is 100-12800 (which is 'close to' the 100-25600 native range of the 5DIII and a 1-stop improvement on the 7D spec). Many times, Canon's statements about ISO performance improvements refer to JPG images or ISO range, not noise levels at a given ISO setting.

The rest of the spec list looks pretty darn good, but I'll believe the line about ISO performance when I see RAW files. But then again, in marketing speak 'close to the 5D3' might mean simply that the native range is 100-12800 (which is 'close to' the 100-25600 native range of the 5DIII and a 1-stop improvement on the 7D spec). Many times, Canon's statements about ISO performance improvements refer to JPG images or ISO range, not noise levels at a given ISO setting.

Zlatko

"What the 6d should have been" are weSomehow missing the fact that the 6d is full frame and the better FF is called 5d3 and the better 5d3 is called 1d X.

Exactly right. The better camera (the one it "should have been") always exists — but people don't want to pay for it. They want the flagship camera features at the economy camera price. Oh, and they want all of the flagship camera features in the economy camera size & weight. That point of view always seems unrealistic to me.

The 61 point AF is an obvious upgrade. The 10 fps would be welcome, but 8 was fine. 24mp? Well ok, but what's it's pixel quality and iso ability like? These are the two biggest dissapointments with the 7D. Compare the files from a 5DIII and there's no comparison.